Can someone clarify why:
sentence A:
{ mi kakne lo bajra }
is not as good as
sentence B:
{ mi kakne lo nu bajra }
Assuming the rationale is that "nu" is necessary to mark an event/state, it seems to me that since (event/state) is inherent in the x2 argument of kakne, that adding the 'nu' would be superfluous.
Assuming the argument is that it becomes nonsensical to say sentence A, i.e. "You can't say I can runner," I would think that argument is based on English concepts of proper grammar, and that there should be no a priori reason something like "I can runner" is "nonsensical."
Or is there some other veciski?